X-mas: 16-35mm 2.8 ii vs. canon 50mm 1.2

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sort by date Sort by votes
S

SJTstudios

Sep 16, 2012
150
0
6,121
#1
hey, guys, trying to decide which lens i should go for for X-mas.
the two lenses are the lenses above. i have enough money to buy one. so which one should i chooses. i specialize in sports, portraits, and landscapes, so i want to choose, what would be better first. please also consider a 14-24 2.8 and a 50mm 1.2 ii. example, if i get the 16-35 now, i'll get the 50mm ii later.
 
#2
You have not mentioned what camera you use or the lenses you currently have and what percentage of your shots are sports, landscape and portrait. Without that it would be the preference of the person who suggests rather than what would be better for you...

My option (strictly for me) would be the 16-35L.
 
Upvote 0
#3
I think this is a question best answered by you. It's mostly a matter of which lens you'd find more useful, and what can't be done well with the equipment you already have. You didn't say whether you have a full-frame or crop sensor camera, but I'm assuming FF, since the 16-35 is much less useful on a crop and there are lenses better-suited for less money.
You mentioned that your favorite subjects are landscapes, portraits and sports. What is it you do more of, and in what kind of situations do you find your current set-up most lacking? If you find yourself wanting something wider for sweeping views, I'd recommend the 16-35. On the other hand, if you'd rather have fast glass for low-light conditions and indoor sports, I'd say get the 1.2.
If I knew what you already own, I might be able to make a better call. What is your favorite lens now? And, is there something you have that you'd like to replace? Perhaps, if you can answer those two questions, you'll have your answer.

If it were up to me, I'd definitely get the 16-35. But, then again, I already have one.
 
Upvote 0
#7
The reason why i gave up 16-35 bcoz of its distortion amnd i believed it was meant for landscape

And the excuse why i moved on frm 50 1.2 bcoz of its range on FF aint just as good as the 35 for wider or 85 for portraits :)
 
Upvote 0
#8
1. 16-35 II is no where near Nikon 14-24 in term of sharpness at f2.8. I will drop my 16-35 II if Canon releases new WA as good as Nikon 14-24.

2. 50mm L.....I'm not sure either. Alot of poeple said is worth it. I still CAN'T see big different btw 1.4 and 1.2 in term IQ. I rented it couple weeks ago. My 2cents; I do not think 1.2 is worth it. I will wait for version II. I do regret for selling my 1.4 - it was sharp at 1.8

Final decision: 16-35 II and 50mm f1.4. Both lenses will cover your needs.
 
Upvote 0
#11
Great to hear, what may help, is that I currently use a rebel, but I'm moving up to eithe a 1d mark iv or 5d ii next year, since I've saved up enough, I could buy either now, but I'm lacking some stuff. My only super wide is my 18-55, but I also have a 50mm 1.8. My worry, is not having a sufficient lens for a future upgrade, but I could always ask to borrow money from my parents or hold off till.
 
Upvote 0
#12
Random Orbits said:
50L. A TS-E 17 or 24 might be better for landscapes than the 16-35L II.
Click to expand...

Return I need versatility, what I have now is the 70-200 mm 2.8 is ii, so a 16-35 and a 50 will give a good range. I don'to shoot on a field or a court, I shoot on a boat for competitive sailing, that is really besides the question. Because I otherwise shoot portraits/landscapes. But now that I think about it, I should probably get the 50mm 1.2l, I borrowed it one time and loved it, and I make $$$ off of portraits, so maybe for now is the best option, I could always just grab a 17-40, or pick up the 16-35 after a price drop for the 14-24 release.
And when I do shoot indoors for my younger brothers highschool basketball game, it might come in handy.

Thanks so much guys, but I am still open to opinions :)
 
Upvote 0
#14
SJT, I have photographed sailing professionally since my early twenties, so hopefully what has served me well will work for you. While shooting boat-to-boat I'll use the 70-200 and 300 as my standard lenses and often work with longer ones, what I find I need for onboard shots is almost always wide. I think you'll find the 16-35 a perfect fit most all the time and the 50 will be too tight.

I've attached the following pictures, both taken with this lens. To give you a better sense of scale, the boats are, respectively, 44 and 35 feet in length.
 

Attachments

  • mascalzone_72003.jpg
    mascalzone_72003.jpg
    318.5 KB · Views: 1,651
  • lahaina_7543.jpg
    lahaina_7543.jpg
    1.9 MB · Views: 1,595
Upvote 0
#16
SJTstudios said:
hey, guys, trying to decide which lens i should go for for X-mas.
the two lenses are the lenses above. i have enough money to buy one. so which one should i chooses. i specialize in sports, portraits, and landscapes, so i want to choose, what would be better first. please also consider a 14-24 2.8 and a 50mm 1.2 ii. example, if i get the 16-35 now, i'll get the 50mm ii later.
Click to expand...


They don't really compare in any way shape or form. So there is no "better" or "worse" here. I would start with the question what exactly you want to use it for, which focal length you prefer and for what, how you feel about narrow depth of field and how to use it. Sports, portraits, landscapes are three very different things and I personally would chose different lenses for each. Not that either of those lenses couldn't be useful in all three areas at times.
I personally have a bias towards primes and have always had a thing for fast 50mm lenses (on full frame that is). So the 50L was high on my list. I don't have the 16-35 yet but could see adding it at some point. To me it's more of a specialty lens while for others it's their go-to walk around lens (which for me in fact is the 50). Portraits? Yes the the 50 makes for an excellent portrait lens though for head shots I would maybe go for a longer focal length first (135L in my case). While for landscapes I would look at one of the TS lenses first.

Both your top choices are excellent so you can't really go wrong.
 
Upvote 0
#17
SJTstudios said:
Random Orbits said:
50L. A TS-E 17 or 24 might be better for landscapes than the 16-35L II.
Click to expand...

Return I need versatility, what I have now is the 70-200 mm 2.8 is ii, so a 16-35 and a 50 will give a good range. I don'to shoot on a field or a court, I shoot on a boat for competitive sailing, that is really besides the question. Because I otherwise shoot portraits/landscapes. But now that I think about it, I should probably get the 50mm 1.2l, I borrowed it one time and loved it, and I make $$$ off of portraits, so maybe for now is the best option, I could always just grab a 17-40, or pick up the 16-35 after a price drop for the 14-24 release.
And when I do shoot indoors for my younger brothers highschool basketball game, it might come in handy.

Thanks so much guys, but I am still open to opinions :)
Click to expand...

The 16-35/50/70-200 combination works well. I currently carry that combination on trips where I need a large focal length range. Sometimes I miss having a mid-range zoom, but it's nice having low light capability.

If you intend on using a WA zoom for things other than pure landscapes, it might be worth holding out for the 16-35 instead of the 17-40. Environmental portraits can use the additional stop and better corners at larger apertures.
 
Upvote 0
#20
They're both great lenses, and the 16-35 II is the only zoom I have left out of the ones I've had in the past (70-200 2.8IS, 2 different 24-70mm). But the 50L was the first Canon lens that I truly loved. It's easy to "blow it" with the 50L, but when you nail a shot you really, really nail it. The 16-35mm is great but not that sharp wide open. You may think that the 16-35mm is more versatile since it's a zoom, but I'd say the 50mm may be just as useful (if not more). They're really two different beasts. The 16-35mm is great for landscapes, 50mm is great for just about anything.

Now if you can live without AF, you should seriously consider checking out the Zeiss ZE 50mm f/2 Makro. I was shocked at how much sharper it is than my 50L, I mean night and day difference, especially on the edges. I love Zeiss glass and have been trying to bring myself to get rid of all my Canon glass for almost a year so I can make a complete switch over. But I have sentimental attachments to my L lenses so it's been tough.

Either way I think you'd be happy, but I feel like I've gotten some really special images from my 50L.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

J
Sigma USB DOCK for Canon EF Discontinued
Replies
4
Views
545
Jon741
J
X
R5 Mark II shortage... new information about availability??
Replies
7
Views
2K
thorhe
thorhe
S
Canon’s disdain for APS-C users.
Replies
34
Views
2K
EricN
EricN
Fbimages
Svalbard and Arctic pack ice, summer 2025
Replies
16
Views
1K
ArdoSmith
A
Canon Rumors
Sony officially announces the a7CR and a7C II along with the FE 16-35mm f/2.8 GM II
Replies
20
Views
7K
koenkooi
koenkooi
Top Bottom
Home
Forums
Media
Menu